next Friday, April 17, 2009, will be brought to the attention of the City Council a variation to the Plan for moving company, APA Inc., from its present location in an agricultural area. We
electoral climate, and perhaps this falls in the classic cases of documents "to do" before the elections, to win a few votes of a few families.
My opinion is that such an act would create a dangerous precedent. Moving
APA was required under art. 5 DPR 447/98, which provides for the convening, justifiably, a conference services to see if any modification to the PRG, in the case that the settlement areas of the production facilities are insufficient.
course, the variant is not mandatory, as it sifts the City Council may choose to approve or not.
But what are the problems that this can cause? A community
"normal" through his administration, he draws his own city, identifying, for cost-efficient services and mobility for businesses in areas where there are more services and lower operating costs for these activities .
The urban planning would become useless when they are abused to Article 5.
Anyone, in fact, it might take to build companies in different places from the PIP.
Why companies should find it appropriate to invest in area MIP, if they are able to build wherever they want, even in areas not equipped with the resulting services, and therefore the cost and inconvenience that would weigh, Further, on the community? Imagine
companies located anywhere, without any criteria and, conversely, an industrial area saturated with only on paper, but in fact empty of its role and therefore unable to take off. And
'This is the scenario that would result if the City Council gave the possibility of indiscriminate use of Article 5.
Why should a contractor comply with the programming and the location chosen by the community with areas PIP, if "waiting a little could get elsewhere?
And with the industrial area like ours, which is not saturated, and which has recently been allocated for other lots, including through a contract, why should you apply for a lot if it is then possible to build where you want, and expect others to do?
We always encourage the logic of cunning and logic never equal opportunities?
and the contractor to make efforts and investments and make a request to settle in the PIP area belongs to the non-smart?
And after the first resolution of the City Council in favor of Article 5, how many companies will still invest in the area required for PIP?
Eboli in need of a PIP specific area and to facilitate those who want to invest.
Let the policy choice not to use Article 5, but to entice companies to enter areas that are free. If your
there are valid claims in excess, we expect an extension of the PIP: This is the answer, do not use Article 5!
And we pay attention to the real intentions of those who manifest a willingness to invest: in the past, projects were presented only good on paper, which are reflected in significant harm to the city (see Mall area in PIP never started).
Instead of doing everything possible to help those who really want to invest in the PIP area Melchionda administration did not do unnecessary operations and "custom", which create serious confusion among citizens and previous
Luckily, this Administration has approved the Plan Strategic just a few days ago, strutting the urban planning is a fundamental community! The opposite of what, then, in practice you do, if you adopt this act.
And then the APA did not have a lot in the PIP area and we gave up?
And, given this precedent, we believe that falls under Article 5 series?
Since there are open spaces to be filled, because the APA has not been informed of this opportunity?
discouraged those who want to follow (if anything at the suggestion of technical sharp operators tricking if not complacent politicians) different ways! Help
the IIP to grow in equal opportunities for all.
Andreotti said that " think evil is a sin, but sometimes there are guesses. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment